[quote]pushharder wrote:
…and this would be the beginning of conflict #2.[/quote]
But, what does Iraq have to do with this?
And, haven’t we already killed OBL?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
See the map I so thoughtfully provided for you above.[/quote]
That was 1990, we took care of that in like 36 hours. So, what was the reason for entering a second time?
[quote]We wouldn’t have nailed him if we hadn’t gone after him…and his infrastructure.
It’s all rather elementary.
[/quote]
Yes, we found him with intelligence and 24 dudes (and a dog)…in an “ally” country.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I see. So you’re claiming the USA “created the conflicts”?[/quote]
It always takes at least two to tango, so ‘created’ may be a bit strong. Whether the US had a hand in creating the conflict or not, we rarely miss an opportunity to exploit them.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
See the map I so thoughtfully provided for you above.[/quote]
That was 1990, we took care of that in like 36 hours. So, what was the reason for entering a second time?
[/quote]
It was all one war. One continuous war. Don’t make me have to give you a history lesson. Don’t.
Don’t quit your day job so that you can tackle a major geopolitical “conflict”.
And don’t make me school you on the necessity of eliminating not just Osie, but his infrastructure as well.
By the way, you know why we found him in Pakistan? Want to take a shot at that one?
Mind you, Chris, you’re arguing with someone who likes much of what Ron Paul has to say. I just can’t handle his foreign policy views. Too simplistic.
[/quote]
Didn’t say I agreed on this foreign policy totally either, just said I agreed with his bounty idea.
The person(s) I agree with when it comes to the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts and others is the Bishops.
But out of all of our efforts in Afghanistan (ignoring Iraq for the time being since it had nothing to do with Al Qaeda), can we really say Bin Laden didn’t “win” in a pretty meaningful way? Sure we killed him, eventually, but what did we give up to make that happen? A few of the major highlight:
- an intractable military engagement that has lead to the deaths of untold numbers on both sides (including more dead American’s than Bin Laden every killed himself) and has no real end in sight
- enacted the Patriot Act, the single largest curtailment of individual liberties in this country’s history
- Guantanamo Bay and the suspension of habeas corpus, one of the founding principles of our republic
- indebted ourselves to the brink of insolvency thanks in large part to massive military engagements after 9/11 that are still on going (Iraq was a big part of this so not entirely Afghanistan’s fault here)
- violated an ally’s sovereignty (granted a shoddy one) to assassinate someone without trial
Admittedly it was/is a complicated issue and hindsight is 20/20, but the cost benefit analysis is definitely skewed on Bin Laden’s side. We basically sold our soul and much of what we stood for as a nation in order to get one man who posed no systemic threat to the US. Our operations have been a Pyrrhic victory at best.
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
But out of all of our efforts in Afghanistan (ignoring Iraq for the time being since it had nothing to do with Al Qaeda), can we really say Bin Laden didn’t “win” in a pretty meaningful way? Sure we killed him, eventually, but what did we give up to make that happen? A few of the major highlight:
- an intractable military engagement that has lead to the deaths of untold numbers on both sides (including more dead American’s than Bin Laden every killed himself) and has no real end in sight
- enacted the Patriot Act, the single largest curtailment of individual liberties in this country’s history
- Guantanamo Bay and the suspension of habeas corpus, one of the founding principles of our republic
- indebted ourselves to the brink of insolvency thanks in large part to massive military engagements after 9/11 that are still on going (Iraq was a big part of this so not entirely Afghanistan’s fault here)
- violated an ally’s sovereignty (granted a shoddy one) to assassinate someone without trial
Admittedly it was/is a complicated issue and hindsight is 20/20, but the cost benefit analysis is definitely skewed on Bin Laden’s side. We basically sold our soul and much of what we stood for as a nation in order to get one man who posed no systemic threat to the US. Our operations have been a Pyrrhic victory at best.[/quote]
Yup. Bin Laden won. Now we’re up to our necks in debt and still pointlessly throwing more money down the shitter.
It may have been hindsight to some. Others like Ron Paul warned us what would happen if the US went in there. I guess most people weren’t listening.
[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
Ron Paul warned us what would happen if the US went in there. I guess most people weren’t listening.[/quote]
That’s because no one listens to Ron Paul’s foreign policy ideas. And based upon the amount of times that he’s been right it’s a darn good thing!
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Didn’t say I agreed on this foreign policy totally either, just said I agreed with his bounty idea.
[/quote]
We’ve already been over this. There WAS a bounty on his head, a $25 million one, for the past 10 years.
Or Just War doctrine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
But out of all of our efforts in Afghanistan (ignoring Iraq for the time being since it had nothing to do with Al Qaeda), can we really say Bin Laden didn’t “win” in a pretty meaningful way? Sure we killed him, eventually, but what did we give up to make that happen? A few of the major highlight:
- an intractable military engagement that has lead to the deaths of untold numbers on both sides (including more dead American’s than Bin Laden every killed himself) and has no real end in sight
- enacted the Patriot Act, the single largest curtailment of individual liberties in this country’s history
- Guantanamo Bay and the suspension of habeas corpus, one of the founding principles of our republic
- indebted ourselves to the brink of insolvency thanks in large part to massive military engagements after 9/11 that are still on going (Iraq was a big part of this so not entirely Afghanistan’s fault here)
- violated an ally’s sovereignty (granted a shoddy one) to assassinate someone without trial
Admittedly it was/is a complicated issue and hindsight is 20/20, but the cost benefit analysis is definitely skewed on Bin Laden’s side. We basically sold our soul and much of what we stood for as a nation in order to get one man who posed no systemic threat to the US. Our operations have been a Pyrrhic victory at best.[/quote]
You may be entirely correct.
Now…what was the alternative course of action?[/quote]
I would say not to engage in a ground war in Afghanistan and to basically do what we did in the end anyways which was use targeted special forces operations to capture him/kill him. We should have demanded Afghanistan/Taliban renounce Bin Laden and turn him over or get out of the way. Definitely not full scale military operations, because while what Bin Laden did was criminal and barbarous, neither he nor the Taliban in Afghanistan posed any real clear and present danger to the US.
Would that be politically popular? Maybe not, but that is what wise leadership is supposed to do- lead and not pander to lynch mobs with little foresight.
At a minimum we absolutely, under no circumstances should have enacted the patriot act or suspended habeas corpus no matter what, even if we did go to war. As Ben Franklin put it (paraphrased) “Those who would sacrifice their liberty for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”.
What is/was the goal here? Destroy Al Qaeda completely or kill Bin Laden? Because if it was the former that is STILL not done nor is it ever likely to even if you started dropping nukes. If it is kill Bin Laden a ground war was completely unnecessary given the opposition.
You asked me what we should have done, this was a part of that plan. The fact that we did this particular element doesn’t detract from the fact it is what should have been done at the time to justify us sending in special ops. But by all means continue to nit pick for the sake of trying to find something to harp on.
No one is denying that their deaths were tragedies. But will having thousands and thousands more Americans die and destroying the financial future of generations of Americans to come possibly bring them back? What about the many, many others that think we have actually made our situation worse via blow back? Or do only folks whose opinions line up with your own get to count as ‘vastly more informed’? If we sacrifice our freedoms, our principles, and ultimately far more American lives than were taken as retribution does it still seem like such a good idea? I would say no and if the folks who were killed in those attacks realized what ‘revenging’ them would entail they might not be so keen on us destroying ourselves for the sake of their lives.
Oh and what about all of the thousands and thousands of innocent Afghanis that we killed in the process? Do they not count? Surely you don’t think every one of them was complicit? Or does killing innocent people only count when they are OUR innocent people? Call it inevitable collateral or whatever you like, but make no bones about it we have killed more innocent people in this process than the Taliban ever did. Two wrongs do not make a right.
In many respects, yes. It was an understandable pain that brought out these cries for retribution, but the mentality was precisely that of a lynch mob and thus exactly why we passed things like the Patriot Act without blinking. People were not thinking or acting rationally.
I don’t give a flying fuck about the habeas corpus of some goat fucking Islamic terrorist in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
Ben Franklin was speaking of American citizens when he wrote those words.
[/quote]
Indeed, and what about the innocent American citizens that were indefinitely detained by the US despite lack of evidence (A quick example The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines)?
But more importantly, I didn’t realize that the inalienable rights of man our founders were so keen on only extended to US citizens. Would it be okay to torture someone who wasn’t a citizen? If not why?
It is called having moral consistency. If we want to genuinely maintain a position of moral authority in the world, we need to practice what we preach in every situation, not just when we deem it convenient. The fact we were in the business of sending people to other countries to torture (Fact Sheet: Extraordinary Rendition | American Civil Liberties Union) or using Guantanamo as a laughable excuse for ignoring basic, fundamental principles of the USA is appalling.
What you are describing is blind vengeance in all these scenarios. If we want to act like we actually have moral fiber as a people and as a country we cannot behave this way.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I don’t give a flying fuck about the habeas corpus of some goat fucking Islamic terrorist in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
Ben Franklin was speaking of American citizens when he wrote those words.
[/quote]
No, he was speaking about people.
Also, you do not know that the people detained were terrorists and you never will.
Finally, you, as an American citizen can be kidnapped or killed if your president says so.
So maybe it would have been wise to give a fuck in the beginning.